Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE TEXT: Answerer Procedures (29th May)

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>> 6.4.6.  Removing a media description from a BUNDLE group
>> 
>>   When generating the SDP Answer, if the Answerer wants to remove an
>>   "m=" line from a BUNDLE group (without rejecting the "m=" line),it
>>   MUST NOT include the "m=" line in a BUNDLE group.  In addition, the
>>   SDP Answer MUST not add its local bundle address to the "m=" line.
>> 
>>   An Answerer MUST NOT, in the SDP Answer, remove an "m=" line from a
>>   BUNDLE group, unless the "m=" line had unique address information in
>>   the associated SDP Offer.
>> 
>>   NOTE: The reason for the restriction above is that, if the "m=" line
>>   would be removed from the BUNDLE group, the address information would
>>   be identical to the "m=" lines remaining in the BUNDLE group.
>> 
>>   OPEN: The decision for allowing a media description with port zero
>>   values inside a BUNDLE group is pending on update for RFC 5888.
>> 
>> I thought we had agreed to no bundle splitting.
>> 
>> I am not sure what you mean by "splitting", but this is not about moving an m- line from one BUNDLE group to another 
>> BUNDLE group, but to move it outside an BUNDLE group all together. People wanted to allow that in the case where the 
>> Offer contains different ports, but if you disagree we need to discuss it further.
> 
> One case that is brought up for this is a conference bridge where the voice and video go to different IP addresses. The 
> browser makes a offer to the conference bridge and can offer all the voice and video in one bundle, but the answer from 
> the bridge keeps all the video in the bundle but puts the audio outside of any bundle. It did not split a bundle into two 
> bundles but for all the things offered in the bundle, the answer said yes to some and no to others about them being in the bundle. 

Correct.

Regards,

Christer